The Sacred Narrative: Behold, the Sanity of the Center-Left
The mainstream media has perpetuated a sacred narrative that we are expected to buy into unconditionally and without exception: Conservatives — and by proxy the GOP presidential candidates — are extremists who must come to the middle to court the coveted moderates if we want any chance of winning in 2012.
The mythology we are made to believe tells us that we as conservatives must tone it down. We ought to take a few steps to the left and move closer to the voice of reason — the Democratic Party and the gods of liberalism. They are, after all, the moderate ones, the levelheaded ones, the centrist ones. One problem with the mythology of the mainstream media: it’s just that, a baseless myth.
Euhemerus, an ancient Greek mythographer, suggested that myths began as distorted historical accounts of real events. Through continually articulating the imaginative re-writing of history, the myth is accepted as truth and the actors in them elevated to the status of gods.
The mainstream media has taken on the role of mythmaker. They repeatedly color events in such a way that paints the liberals as logical and conservatives as extreme. No matter how far left the Democratic Party moves or how outrageous their rhetoric becomes, they will remain the gods of reason and commonsense. And regardless of how rational conservatives are, the Republican Party will be dubbed the god of extremism and bigotry.
But let me challenge the mythmakers of the mainstream media with something they avoid like the plague: the truth.
An article in the Economist last week dubbed the GOP field as “cranky, extreme, backward-looking, detached from the mainstream,” and thereby “unelectable.” This is nothing new — all part of driving forward the myth. But the truth? If the Democrats don’t tone it down and move to the center, they are the ones at risk of losing the White House.
Take a look at some of the less-than-moderate statements the Democrats have made over the last few months.
On October 27, Obama said this to students at University of Colorado-Denver:
We can’t wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won’t act, I will. We’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.
And he has done just that with the unconstitutional recess appointments of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new appointees to the National Labor Relations Board.
I’m pretty sure discounting the Constitution and completely ignoring one branch of government will not fly very well with the beloved moderates.
Better come back to the middle, Obama.
In a rare moment of brilliance last month, Majority Leader Harry Reid said this on job creation:
Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They’re impossible to find and don’t exist.
Not sure what to label this statement if not “extreme.” Perhaps “false” would be another accurate description. (Paul Roderick Gregory of Forbes does an in-depth analysis of Reid’s fuzzy, imprecise calculations here.)
Isn’t everything the Pope says “the word of God on earth?” Well, the National Socialist Democratic Action Party feels the same way about whatever 0 says…or any of his acolytes, for that matter. The MSM is totally in the tank for the Donks, so why should anyone be surprised? And, as a corollary, why should Republicans pay any attention whatsoever to suggestions from the MSM as to where we should move politically?
“Isn’t everything the Pope says “the word of God on earth?””
No.
“Isn’t everything the Pope says ‘the word of God on earth?’”
*Facepalm*
OK, I have to know, where did you get the quoted section from?
No, no, no, you go right on down that conservative path, sirs. Do like Rick Perry, pray the economy well.
Things have worked out soooo well with the Obuma mob.
No, how about you going down that Leftist path and always fight on the grounds of false alternatives – where neither alternative is a win?
The Left could never get away with their outrageous statements, if the Marxist Media did not cover their backs by playing down or refusing to cover them. So the Marxist Media megaphones bounce the narrative off each other and it tends to create its own truth. You know, tell a lie long enough and then people start to believe it.
Well, you can stand there and wave your arms around wildly ’til the cows come home and at least you will still have your self respect for the next 4 years. With Romney as the candidate, BHO could sit on a beach in Hawaii for the entire election and still win, as long as there are these insane purity tests. The dems know they will be playing not so much to their base — they have them in the bag no matter what — but rather to disaffected conservatives and libertarians that feel they are being ignored by the republican establishment. Its a car wreck with advance ticket sales.
If the “conservatives and libertarians” would rather have Lord High Emperor Obama the First than tolerate Romney, then they do not deserve the right to vote, as they’re emotionally nothing more than whiny tweens.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream!
Yes! Not tolerating someone who flip flops on issues, seeks to continue the process of empire building that is bankrupting us, who has no problem with torture, having the power to imprison anyone he wants for as long as he wants with no appeal or oversight is the mark if someone who is immature.
Don’t they know that if they DON’T tolerate it, they will end up with the other guy, who flip flops on issues, seeks to continue the process of empire building that is bankrupting us, who has no problem with torture, has no problem with the president having the power to imprison anyone he wants for as long as he wants with no appeal or oversight?
What is wrong with the childish people with their ‘standards’?
If it’s Obama v Romney, you’ll either stay home or throw your vote to a zero-chance third party candidate?
Romney, at the least, would be constrained by a hostile press.
I will vote as my conscience directs me. I will not vote FOR someone who directly supports moral evil.
On the contrary, the Dems’ incessant harping on “Republican extremists” strongly indicates that they’re trying to scare off moderate and Independent voters, not the conservative GOP base.
The comments reflect a highly polarized electorate. I tried to describe that polarization here: http://clarespark.com/2009/12/16/perceptions-of-the-enemy-the-left-looks-at-the-right-and-vice-versa/. Populism has been a strong element of our political culture from the beginnings of the Republic. Populism is always irrational.That too is part of this essay/glossary.
What “establishment”? Our political speech has deteriorated. I tried to elevate it here: http://clarespark.com/2012/01/12/the-counter-culture-vs-the-establishment/. Are we not all at sea when words have lost their meaning and political speech is so abstract as to be meaningless?
Kayleigh,
I think Barney Frank has a fair point. His view is that a military does not create, it does not contribute towards the economy, it merely stops the ‘bad things’ that can destabilise the platform for economic growth; it is not a ‘creator’.
If you were to look outside of the US media, which I am sure you do, you would realise that the perception of the Republican candidates as an eccentric bunch with several outdated socio-political views is a widely held one, even in right-of-centre news outlets which traditionally align themselves with the Republican Party’s way of thinking. Picking on Santorum for example, his views on abortion were last fashionable in the 1950s and strongly contradict his generally libertarian stance which promotes the decision-making capabilities of the individual.
“you would realise that the perception of the Republican candidates as an eccentric bunch with several outdated socio-political views is a widely held one”
Does that make that “perception” correct?
I don’t think it does. I think the “perception” is pushed in order to benefit the left-fascists.
Does heavily Catholic Italy also consider Santorum’s views on abortion to be outdated?
I doubt it–because Santorum is merely echoing the view of the Vatican.
I submit that those foreign critics who regard the GOP’s stance on this and other social issues to be outdated, also regard religion itself to be outdated.
As do you.
Am I getting warm on any of these?
“Does heavily Catholic Italy also consider Santorum’s views on abortion to be outdated?”
- ‘Heavily Catholic Italy’ hasn’t acted ‘heavily Catholic’ for a VERY long time. One could actually argue that it never did.
“I doubt it–because Santorum is merely echoing the view of the Vatican.”
- I’m not sure what the small city-state in the middle of Rome has to do with anything. Are you saying that Santorum is echoing the teaching of the Catholic Church in his platform? If that is your meaning, you are factually incorrect. Santorum has basically promised to ignore the Holy Father and Church teaching on that whole pre-emptive war thing, and as well seems to have no problem with establishing torture as a fundamental American value.
Mike, you must be a liberal – your lack of reading comprehension gives it away. The quote was:
“Does heavily Catholic Italy also consider Santorum’s views on abortion to be outdated?
I doubt it–because Santorum is merely echoing the view of the Vatican.”
Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with pre-emptive war.
you also misunderstand Heather’s point about spin-offs from military development.
Please, read and understand what others are talking about before interjecting your half-baked, sophomoric blatherings.
“Mike, you must be a liberal – your lack of reading comprehension gives it away.”
- I’m not sure what you would use as the definition of ‘liberal’ here. But I think, rereading your original statement, I understood you just fine. Perhaps you don’t understand my response?
“Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with pre-emptive war.”
- Actually, yes it does. As does the topic of torture. All tie in directly with understanding the dignity of man.
“you also misunderstand Heather’s point about spin-offs from military development.”
- No, I understand what she was trying to say just fine. My point is that military spending does NOT aid an economy. It is a fallacy that has been refuted again and again. It is no more benefit to an economy that building a bridge to an empty island that no one goes to. It is a misallocation of resources created by artificial demand. The real consumer economy is harmed.
The point of scientific advances coming from military uses is NOT a valid excuse to waste resources. You and she are operating on the principle that, had there been no military spending, NONE of those advances would have taken place. Again, you two are working from a fallacy.
“Please, read and understand what others are talking about before interjecting your half-baked, sophomoric blatherings.”
- You will not catch me claiming to be a genius, but I do seem to have a bit deeper understanding of the economics than you in this case. Which isn’t saying much.
Mike in KC, military spending cannot be viewed in a vacuum National defense is the only constitionally mandated function of the federal government; everything else the feds do is questionable at the very least, and unconstitutional at worst. Military spending levels are below historical norms as a percentage of GDP, and given the threats we face (which Obama in particular has ignored), we are not spending too much on defense. What’s bankrupting the country are the socialistic programs that Democrats and RINOs have sold us since the New Deal. Or are you claiming that entitlement spending is good for the economy but defense spending isn’t? You need to refocus on the real problem: runaway entitlement spending. Raising taxes to pay for the entitlements will kill economic growth (not that there is any these days thanks to The One’s fiscal and regulatory policies). The only long-term solution is economic growth (stimulated by lower taxes on producers) and a reduction in entitlement spending starting with a repeal of Obamacare.
The insights of media “outside of the US” might be interesting. However, why on earth would American voters let foreign media shape their voting decisions?
We’ve already been there, done that with Obama, the great uniter and internationalist. Anybody who’s been paying attention can see how well that’s working out.
While foreign media doesn’t shape my voting decisions, I find it very helpful in that it gives me an insight into what other people think of the candidates. Often, they see things from their point of view that are not evident from ours but make perfect sense in that whoever is the candidate will have to be dealing with their points of view when elected. For instance, most of the foreign media sites I visit agree, Obama is an idiot! Now, if only the voters in 2008 had paid attention to that opinion.
His view is that a military does not create, it does not contribute towards the economy
And it’s a completely ignorant and asinine view. The armed forces do not wave a magic wand and equipment appears; thousands of people are employed in a variety of industries, creating equipment and new technologies–many of which will benefit civilian populations (in ways other than defending them, of course). For example, it takes hundreds of people (and engineering does not pay minimum wage) to design and build a new helicopter engine; the military funds a portion of the development and in return the manufacturer is allowed to sell it to non-military clients–builders of helicopters used for things like life-flight, forest fire-fighting, news station traffic cams, private aviation….
Nope, nothing created or contributed there at all!
Oh, and just because something is “fashionable” doesn’t mean it is right. Considering black people to be subhuman used to be “fashionable”, even popular. And it was wrong, just like killing babies for personal convenience is wrong. Someday we’ll look at “abortion rights” the same way we now look on slaveholding and Jim Crow.
You misunderstand economics. If military spending was the real way to bring prosperity, we should convert the entire economy to the building of tanks, aircraft, etc.
What you fail to understand is that the time, employees, material, etc that is used to make an attack helo, arty rounds, or the latest carrier TAKES AWAY resources from being actually productive in the economy based upon consumer demand. The money paid for these items comes from taxation or federal debt. THERE IS NO ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED BY THESE EXPENSES!!
There is an ‘artificial demand’ created by military spending.
And PLEASE, before you respond to this, read and understand what I’m talking about instead of posing another fallacy like you did here. It ties back in with the broken widow fallacy that everyone here claims they understand.
OK,
You are both right.
HeatherRadish understands the value in companies selling “military equipment” to our friends and allies, as it helps offset the total (US taxpayer) dollar amount spent to keep these companies viable. The country as a whole loosely benefits from an educated technical workforce, such as the kind required to design and build these things….Many private companies (mine) actively seek people with those very skills and experience.
Mike gets the basic “kill people, break stuff” role of the military. We (I’m a former US Marine) do not build the nations wealth. We consume it. Such that our actions may prevent greater catastrophy is an abstract that doesnt have easily quantifiable numbers. We “cost” X dollars in the budget, and “produce” zero revenue every year.
As for fallacies of what does and does not “work”, look to the military.
Discipline works.
Expectations of behavior to standard, works.
Strict rules and harsh punishments uniformly applied, works.
Rewarding success and condemning failure, works.
Take those away and you have a chaotic mob, distrustful of its leadership and lacking the fighting spirit to succeed on the battlefield.
The current (50 year) liberal fashion of ill-discipline, acceptance of public rudeness (particularly by celebrities) as “cool”, the coddling of criminals as “compassion” and the reluctance to “judge” obvious non-productive/self destructive behaviors as “tolerance”, and creating (tax funded) fall-back contingencies for every concievable bad decision as “compassion”, is a complete and obvious failure.
The loose willed and the lazy now simply camp out, and demand funding from the stodgy and the “un-fun”…those evil, un-cool, non-hip buzz-killers with the DISCIPLINE to succeed.
Broken windows un-tended lead to worse.
Broken morals, the same.
Yup. Military is economically consumptive of wealth. It, along with clerical and regulatory work, is necessary consumption, but too much will kill the economy. Balance and moderation.
Root,
“HeatherRadish understands the value in companies selling ‘military equipment’”
- In this, I’m not sure it qualifies as ‘military spending’, necessarily, anymore than making any other product and selling it to a third party. I think. What I was referring to was creating and direct use by OUR military.
“Such that our actions may prevent greater catastrophe is an abstract that doesn’t have easily quantifiable numbers.”
- True. This is the use of the military. It can also have the opposite effect. But that’s out of scope with what I was talking about.
“Discipline works. Expectations of behavior to standard, works. Strict rules and harsh punishments uniformly applied, works. Rewarding success and condemning failure, works.”
- Agreed. But take those out of ANY society, not just the military, as you allude to, and you have MAJOR problems.
I think y’all are all missing an important point. If Bwanny Fwank understands that the military doesnt contribute to the economy except to create an environment in which the economy can flourish, then he understands that that is true for the govt as a whole. Yet, he has spent his career bloating that government beyond the founders wildest nightmares. A truly evil man.
The military is a job creation machine that is used by the corporate power structure to ensure the suppport of the White working class. White workers who would otherwise starve in a pitless corpoarchy can join the military and take part in corporate America’s repressive domination of thirld world people of color. They can also make a nice living at home building the devices of death necessary to maintain this domination.
Police forces and prisons largely play the same role. They allow lower class Whites to exercise authority and supremacy over Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims while making a modest living.
This is why they don’t instantly rise up against the top-hatted plutocrats.
Didn’t know that Noam Chomsky (aka “Throbbin Yobbin”) commented on this website. Only he or an acolyte could spout such nonsense. Move to North Korea for some useful perspective.
I’m not sure if Throbbin is a troll or just really stupid.
“Outside the US media”? Sure, I read the Daily Telegraph a lot — check it out. I’ll occasionally read El País & ABC (Spain) & Corriere della Sera (Italy).
But if you think the Europeans have an unvarnished view of American politics in particular, or even the US in general, that’s absurd.
The military are there to display American might needed to maintain its strategic security in a world where other countries and rulers have no qualms about oppressing the rest.
Had America not projected its power it would by now be under the thumb of the Russians, for one, and would not have the economic independence needed for its current standard of living let alone the freedom for its citizens to live in peace.
The relative tranquility of your urban sprawl did not come without cost.
Just imagine yourself sitting in front of the TV while one of the idiot left-wing talking heads says something like, “Anyone who admires Mr. XXXXXXX is a right-wing wacko lunatic. Then it occurs to you that YOU admire Mr. XXXXXXX. Have that happen a couple more times and the MSM loses another viewer.
The key is to accelerate this process. We should take every opportunity to egg the media on so they make ever more frequent and ridiculous statements like Harry Reid’s ‘unicorn’ statement. Every time that happens a few more Americans wake up to the MSM’s bias and the MSM loses a little more credibility.
I think more often than not, it actually goes the other way. Instead of the MSM losing a viewer, the mush-head in front of the TV actually thinks that the MSM propagandist is right and that he must be wrong, so all of a sudden he no longer supports Mr. XXXXXX, he now supports Mr. YYYYYYYY, who is acceptable to whichever alphabet propaganda outlet our fictitious TV viewer is watching.
I believe we are at war with the left. Agreeing with what Jim DeMint said, that there are opposing world views that are unreconcilable in opposition. That this new political paradigm isn’t partisanship, which he says does allow for sone compromises based upon commonly held grounds. That’s gone, now. War is a clash of extremes by extreme measures. We should engage rather than attempt to sugar coat it.
One of the biggest problems is that we’ve functioned under such a broad based, commonly held belief system for so long that we forgot the hard lessons that built and buttressed that system. What happens is that we can repeat the rules for civilization but not the reasons for the rules; whether it be the debate over social issues or economic issues.
The left has two tactics that they use to great effect. They ask why there are rules and then they deconstruct the rules. The right is discombobulated. We are forced to reconstruct our whole worldview, some of which have been taken for granted for millenia and the youngest rules for centuries. Construction is much harder work, much more time consuming and is naturally prone to errors. All the left has to do to keep us off balance is to keep asking, why and keep deconstructing.
I don’t want the Democrats to “tone it down”. I want them to keep ratcheting it up, so that we are more and more assured of taking them out of power this November.
Wow. I agree with Barney Frank, as quoted. (shudder)
The job of the military is to kill people and break things. That might have a good effect, but their main purpose is not to “do good things”. “Good things” in not relevant to their _main_ purpose.
They might be used for secondary jobs that are good, but they cost too much to be used for that on a regular basis, and it messes up the mindset they need for their main job, killing and breaking.
We are indeed at war with the left, and we need to recognise that.
To that end, we have to “mainstream” the arguement that the media is clearly biased. Fight them openly, call them what they are.
Reply to Mr. Snuffleuptigus:
“Come on George, you worked for a Liberal Democrat President, don’t pretend youre without an agenda”
Say that as a preface to answering a question.
Say it live in prime time. Call them out.
“what qualifications, other than her obvious liberal advocacy positions, qualified Bill and Hillaries daughter to get a News position at your station?”
“considering that Islamists and Animal Rights/environmentalists make up the bulk of ACTUAL domestic terror events, with ACTUAL arson and ACTUAL murders, why are you harping on the “theoretical” threat from the so-called right when none such has occured?”
They are advocating for the left…Say so, every time they do, and have the FACTS with you.
You cannot fight your enemy if you refuse to call him your enemy.
Somehow I think not. I expect Congress to be controlled by Republicans in 2013. Who knows they may alter the culture. That is, do what they were elected to do. As for president anyone but Obama!
The myth is not stagnant nor entrenched in the past. Today it is called the narrative which can be as fictional as it is real. No one buys a car or votes for a president based solely on the logic of qualifications.
The myth/narrative includes a journalist’s sensational array of idea flashes: the candidate’s hair, their vocal intonations, group-think, he said-she said, jingos like “hope and change”, name recognition, sound bites, bloopers, and gottchas. Demagogery works as well as impossible promises, strawmen arguements, and kissing babies. The voting record takes second tier behind the meme and the image. Big bucks, mob rule, and testy alliances all go into the election. With fame comes those god-like worshippers and myths thereof.
No one has just one vote, because every time we outloud express an opinion that factor as a vote goes into the whirlwind of decision.
Jan. 24th: Our Best Chance to Kill SOPA January 12, 2012 – by Donny Shaw
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2460-Jan-24th-Our-Best-Chance-to-Kill-SOPA
eh id be careful 52%, that means a BUTTLOAD of people want class warefare. so we must be very careful and not get too ahead of ourselves. like the premise of seinfeild, Obama won on a campaign of nothing. he had no specifics no history, just a slogan and a symbol. what that says to me is that flare over substance CAN win and that even tho i do believe as a liberterian the conserves have the argument won, that we still need to really work on our delivery system. we need BOLD statements founded in truth and people willing to scream. we must ignore the race arguments and class argument that will assuradly be the backbone of obamas reelection and not be afraid to tell our detractors to shut up, sit down and we are right and here is the PROOF why. but dont assume that the dems will shoot themselves in the foot bythemselves, they have been doing it for 60 + yrs now and you still have entire groups of people willing to live or die to vote for them based on ..nothing other than the fact they are dems
Romney is nothing but a greed monster who ran a corporation that seized the crumbs of the poor to enrich himself. Nobody so greedy has the right to live, much less be Presient. It is obvious his only agenda will be to allow his class to seize whatever baubles and crumbs 99% of the population still have left in order to enrich themselves. Why would anybody outside the top 1% want him?
For a little bit of truth that the corporate media couldn’t completely crush:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/krugman-america-isnt-a-corporation.html?hp
> Throbbin Yobbin writes: [Mitt Romney's] only agenda will be to allow his class
> to seize whatever baubles and crumbs 99% of the population still have left
A sarcastic MASTERPIECE!Your inclusion of a link to a Paul Krugman column was brilliant. Some people will definitely think you were being serious. And that line “a little bit of truth…” What a riot! Oh, and using the clue “Presient” to tell us that you were joking was superb. Was it a JUST typo, or does it mean something? Of course, you mostly wanted to impress those of us with good reading comprehension, who wouldn’t just blow past the word assuming you meant PRESIDENT. It’s brilliant.
I do have one tiny spot of criticism, though. “Greed monster?” The insipid lefties who would normally write this kind of screed would not be SO INSIPID as to use the term “greed monster.” It makes you (ie. THEM) sound like you (THEY) just woke up and were scared by something imaginary from under the bed or in the closet. Lefty extremists are not quite that juvenile. So if you grow it up a little, next time, your sarcasm will be perfect.